08/13/iran-will-have-a-
nuclear-bomb-by-october/At its present rate of
enrichment, Iran will have 250 kilograms of 20-percent grade uranium,
exactly enough to build its first nuclear bomb, in roughly six weeks,
and two-to- four bombs by early 2013, debkafile’s military and
intelligence sources report. Hence the leak by an unnamed Israeli
security source Sunday, Aug. 12, disclosing Iran’s progress in
developing the detonator and fuses for a nuclear warhead which can be
fitted onto Shehab-3 ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel.

Since 20 percent refined uranium is a short jump to weapons
grade fuel, Iran will have the capability and materials for building an
operational nuclear bomb by approximately October 1.

This knowledge is not news to US President Barack Obama, Saudi
King Abdullah, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, or Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu – and certainly not to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Netanyahu’s comment at the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting
Sunday: “All threats against the home front are dwarfed by one – Iran
must not be allowed to have nuclear arms!” – was prompted by that
deadline.

Ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not have that information when
he “assured” Tel Aviv students Sunday, “Iran’s nuclear program has not
reached the threshold necessitating Israeli action now or in the near
future.”

He further claimed that Israel’s “defense leaders” don’t
subscribe to the view that “action now is unavoidable.” Olmert, who
stepped down under a cloud of suspected corruption in 2009, has not
since then had access to regular intelligence briefings on Iran. So
either he spoke out of ignorance or willfully joined an opposition
chorus of voices speaking out against Netanyahu and Defense Minister
Ehud Barak.

The fact is that when Olmert approved the Israeli strike for
destroying a nuclear reactor under construction by Iran and North Korea
in northern Syria in September 2007, Iran was years away from
accumulating enough enriched uranium and the capability to build nuclear
warheads. Both are now within Tehran’s grasp in weeks.

Leading an opposition campaign to bring down the incumbent
government is legitimate. Discrediting belated Israeli action to
pre-empt a nuclear Iran as fodder for that campaign is not. If what
Olmert and Barack (the same defense minister as today) did in 2007 was
necessary then, action now for delaying Iran’s imminent “breakout” to a
bomb is many times more necessary and far more urgent.

However Netanyahu and Barak have put themselves in a straitjacket by two lapses:

1. By foot-dragging on their decision for two years, they have
led their opponents at home and in Washington – and Khamenei’s office
too – to believe that, by turning on the heat, they can hold Israel back
from military action against Iran’s nuclear program until it is too
late. The time has been used not just for Iranian nuclear progress, but
to enlist ex-politicians and retired generals at home and add them to
the voices, especially in the White House, which believe Israel can
learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

2. Netanyahu and Barak have behaved as though a decision on Iran
is in their exclusive province, insulated from the turmoil and change
swirling through Israel’s Arab neighbors in the past two years.

But the Middle East has a way of catching up with and rushing past slow-moving politicians:

Sunday, at 10:00 a.m. Netanyahu
warned his ministers that no threat was worse than a nuclear Iran. At
17:55 p.m., Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi dropped a
bombshell in Cairo. In one fell swoop, he smashed the Egyptian military
clique ruling the country for decades, sacked the Supreme Military
Council running Egypt since March 2011 and cut the generals off from
their business empire by appropriating the defense ministry and military
industry.

That fateful eight hours-less-five-minutes have forced Israel’s leaders to take a second look at their plans for Iran.

Morsi’s lightning decisions were
the finishing touches that proved the Islamist Bedouin terror attacks
in Sinai of Aug. 5 fitted neatly into a secret master plan hatched by
Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to seize full control of rule in Cairo –
a plan debkafile first revealed exclusively last Friday, Aug. 10.

Netanyahu now faces one of the hardest dilemmas of his political
career – whether to go forward with the Iran operation, which calls for
mustering all Israel’s military and defense capabilities – especially
for the repercussions, after being suddenly confronted with unforeseen
security challenges on its southwestern border, for thirty years a
frontier of peace.

The exceptional talents of Netanyahu and Barak to put off
strategic decisions until they are overtaken by events has landed Israel
in an especially perilous plight, surrounded now by a soon-to-be
nuclear-armed Iran from the east; threatened Syrian chemical warfare
from the north and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt to its
south.

Eye-popping salaries proposed for employees of the health
benefits exchange being formed in Colorado grabbed the attention of
Republicans and Democrats alike on Thursday. A subcommittee of the board
charged with establishing the exchange is considering a draft budget
for its federal grant application that would create 24 positions and pay
those employees a total of more than $3 million annually to manage the
health care cooperative. The average annual salary of a health benefits
exchange employee would exceed $125,000 under the plan. …“We have
executive directors (of state departments) that are in charge of
thousands of people here that make significantly less than that,” said
Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs. …A Democrat on the committee
overseeing enactment of health benefits exchange legislation in the
state agreed that the figures are worthy of scrutiny. …Under the health
care overhaul, states were required to establish exchanges. Colorado
authorized its exchange this year in SB200.

Keep in mind that the $125,000 figure is an average, which means many of the bureaucrats will be getting much bigger paychecks.

“Obamacare is a great racket!”

And also remember that we’re talking Colorado, not someplace like New York City where the cost of living is a bit higher.

Even more important, the article refers to the “average annual
salary,” which means it probably doesn’t include the gold-plated benefit
packages that are far more generous than generally available in the
private sector (state and local bureaucrats, for instance, make out like bandits on pensions).

Eight Arguments You've Probably Heard Against Mitt Romney

The American people face an important choice in November. They will either re-elect President Barack Obama for another four-year term, or they will replace him with Governor Mitt Romney. Rather than recapitulate the case against
a second term for the incumbent, let's scrutinize eight of the top
prevailing arguments against electing his Republican challenger. Each
of the following anti-Romney indictments has been advanced --
explicitly, or through surrogates -- by the president's campaign and the
Democratic Party. Below you'll find my sincere attempt to address
these criticisms in a balanced and honest way, even as I openly and
transparently admit my conservative leanings at the outset. I will
attempt to rate each claim as as either true, fair, unfair, or false --
and will aim to offer verification of my facts through embedded links to
credible, reliable, and non-partisan sources:

Criticism #1 - Mitt Romney seems secretive because he won't release more than two years of his personal tax returns. Rating: Fair and mostly true.

Governor Romney is a very wealthy man, with an estimated net worth in excess of $200 million.
Born poor, Romney's father worked hard and ultimately became a hugely
successful executive in the auto industry. He was later elected
governor of Michigan, then fell short in an unsuccessful presidential
bid. When George Romney died, he left a large inheritance to his
children, including Mitt, who donated his share to charity. Mitt Romney earned his own sizable fortune over a lengthy and "sterling"
private sector career in finance. Now that he is running for
president, critics have questioned why Romney hasn't released more than
two years of tax returns, citing a precedent
set by his father in 1968. No one disputes that Romney has filed all
of the legally-required financial disclosure documents for a
presidential run, but he has declined to make any more tax records
public. Some conservatives, including yours truly,
have urged him to divulge more information. Given the feeding frenzy
among his opponents over this issue, it is very unlikely that he will
comply at this stage. What we do know is that Romney hasn't encountered
any trouble from the IRS -- suggesting legal compliance -- and that the
McCain campaign Vice Presidential vetters who waded through decades of
Romney's tax documents in 2008 have stated Romney's taxes are paid in full (and the former governor may have even slightly overpaid in some instances). Romney also asserts he hasn't paid a lower income tax rate than 13 percent
in the last ten years, but that number cannot be confirmed without
further documentation. The Romney's have donated prodigious amounts of
money to charity over that period, including to his church, veterans groups, and medical research foundations.

Criticism #2 - During his tenure at Bain Capital, Mitt Romney shipped American jobs overseas, was a "pioneer" in the practice of outsourcing, and may have committed a felony by lying to the SEC. Rating: False.

The Obama campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars on negative
advertisements accusing Romney of being an outsourcer of American jobs.
Independent fact-checkers have exhaustively dismantled this claim;
FactCheck.org ruled that "no evidence" exists to support the charge, and the Washington Post awarded the ads "Four Pinocchios."
When the Romney campaign began to push back against the discredited
allegations, a top Obama aide suggested that Romney might have committed
a felony by lying to the federal government about his departure from
Bain Capital. Romney left Bain in 1999 to save the 2002 Olympics
in Salt Lake City. (When Romney took over, the games were tainted by a
bribery scandal and drowning in debt). In taking on this challenge, he
gave up all active managing duties at the company, even as he remained
its titular CEO. The Obama campaign used this leave of absence to muddy
the waters about Romney's Bain timeline, culminating in the "felony"
line. Fact-checkers again smacked down Team Obama, accusing them of "blowing smoke," without evidence.
They determined that Romney left his managing role at Bain in early
1999 -- the same conclusion reached by an independent, taxpayer-funded
commission in Massachusetts, which investigated the same question in
2002 when Romney was running for governor.

During the uproar over the Obama administration's unprecedented birth
control mandate, some Democrats suggested that Republicans were intent
on "banning" birth control. In fact, Republicans sought to prevent
religious organizations and employers from being forced to pay for other
people's contraception, in violation of their First Amendment right to
freedom of religion. Conservatives simultaneously argued that
contraceptives have been widely available and affordable for decades,
and should remain that way. At a Republican primary debate (prior to
the mandate), Romney put it succinctly: Contraception is "working just fine. Just leave it alone." On abortion, Romney and his running mate are both pro-life, as is a narrow majority
of Americans. Romney does, however, make exceptions for the rare cases
of rape and incest, and if the mother's life is at risk. A campaign ad
from Barack Obama states that Romney does not make these exceptions.
Politifact, a left-leaning fact-checker, has tagged this commercial with
a "pants on fire" score for its dishonesty. The spot is still running in swing states. A Buzzfeed article making similar false claims about Paul Ryan's views has also been corrected.

Criticism #4 - Mitt Romney evaded paying taxes for a decade, and was party to the "largest tax avoidance scheme in history." Rating: False.

The first allegation was leveled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
a Democrat of Nevada. Reid initially peddled the rumor to reporters,
then repeated it on the floor of the Senate. He offered no proof, nor
any indication of who his alleged "source" might be. Given Romney's
good standing with the IRS and Reid's refusal to substantiate his
assertions, fact-checkers firmly rejected them. "Four Pinocchios," declared the Washington Post. "Pants on fire,"
determined left-leaning Politifact. Several Romney defenders have also
noted that Reid himself steadfastly refuses to hand over his own tax returns, despite being the most powerful man in the Senate. He also voted to confirm Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in spite of his documented
tax problems. On the "tax avoidance scheme" question -- raised in an
Obama campaign ad -- FactCheck.org dug through the case and rendered this verdict on the Obama campaign's charge: "There is so much deceit here, we don't even know where to start."

Pointing to a nominally non-partisan study
from the Tax Policy Center, President Obama says Mitt Romney's tax
reforms are regressive. He argues they would either hit middle income
Americans with higher taxes, or add to deficits. The TPC paper declares
Romney's plan "mathematically impossible" without crossing into at
least one of these undesirable outcomes. In fact, the study admits that
it does not directly score
Romney's plan because his proposals lack certain important specifics.
This is a fair criticism. To compensate for this missing data, the
researchers plugged in assumptions of their own (sometimes ignoring
Romney's plainly stated positions), and failed to factor in other
countervailing elements of Romney's agenda. This is not fair. The American Enterprise Institute and the Wall Street Journal
have described scenarios under which Romney's plan is entirely
feasible, based on the arithmetic and evidence from recent political
history. Romney's plan itself involves lowering tax rates among all
income brackets by 20 percent, as well as bringing down the corporate
tax rate (the highest
in the industrialized world). He would "pay for" these cuts by
limiting and eliminating loopholes and deductions, particularly for
higher income earners. These details have not yet been made clear -- a
glaring weakness. In principle, this approach would broaden the tax
base, simplify the tax code, and lower overall rates. It is a model
akin to the recommendations made by the president's fiscal commission, which Obama has chosen to ignore. President Obama has already raised taxes on lower and middle incomeAmericans on several occasions, particularly with the 'Obamacare' mandate tax.

Criticism #6 - Mitt Romney's closure of a steel plant in Kansas City led to the death of a woman with cancer. Rating: False.

This charge is the most incendiary we've seen in the current campaign
cycle, bordering on outright slander. President Obama's campaign
introduced this line attack on a conference call with the press, and on its official website.
The president's formally-endorsed SuperPAC -- run by a former White
House spokesman -- picked up on the charge, enshrining it in a very controversial ad.
It was roundly pummeled by independent fact-checkers and media
organizations. In short, the star of the ad (steelworker Joe Soptic)
was laid off in 2001, eight years after Mitt Romney's Bain Capital
invested in his faltering factory in a bid to save the business, and two
years after Romney left Bain. Soptic was laid off by Bain's new
management, including a man named Jonathan Lavine, who is now a major Obama donor.
Five years after the plant closure, in 2006, Soptic's wife was
diagnosed with cancer and died shortly thereafter. It was later
revealed that Mrs. Soptic had retained her own insurance
after her husband had been laid off. Her coverage dropped when she
eventually left her job, prior to being diagnosed. The insinuation that
Romney had anything to do with her death is egregiously misleading and
low. "Outrageous," fumed CNN. "Four Pinocchios," groaned the Washington Post. "A disgrace," concluded Obama's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune. Obama's
SuperPAC has stood by the ad, spending millions to put it on the air in
swing states. The Obama campaign and White House have refused to
condemn it, eventually getting tangled up and caught in a clear lie about their knowledge of the Soptic family's story. Time's Mark Halperin branded the entire episode the lowest moment of the 2012 campaign in a heated MSNBC appearance.

An email blast from a Democratic campaign committee resurrected this
claim, which was ranked by left-leaning Politifact as the 2011 political
"lie of the year."
Other Democrats have hedged slightly, modifying their accusation to say
Romney and Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it." The DNC Chairwoman
has described the plan as a "death trap" for seniors, and a "tornado"
tearing through nursing homes. This is hysteria, and bears no relation
to reality. For the full facts on the dueling Medicare reform visions,
read this piece. The basics: According to its own actuaries, Medicare is slated to become insolvent within 12 years.
This would result in major cuts for current seniors, and the implosion
of the program for future generations (who are still paying into it,
under penalty of law). In other words, basic math will "end Medicare as
we know it" soon, absent reform. Everyone acknowledges this hard
reality, including the president. The Romney-Ryan solution is modeled
on a bipartisan proposal
co-authored by Paul Ryan and liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of
Oregon. The plan grandfathers in all citizens 55 years old or older,
guaranteeing no changes from current policy. For younger Americans,
Medicare benefits would be paid out under a federal premium support
program, as future seniors would choose among a menu of options. One of
these options would remain the traditional fee-for-service Medicare
model. The others would be private plans, competing for seniors'
business. The Obama plan is quite different. The president transferred
$700 Billion in Medicare cuts
in order to partially fund his new Affordable Care Act, or
"Obamacare." This maneuver is resulting in real cuts to current
seniors. According to the federal Medicare accountants, it strips four million seniors
out of the popular "Medicare Advantage" program, and cuts government
reimbursements to care-givers and hospitals. Medicare's chief actuary
estimated this could result in the closure of 1 in 6 hospitals
that treat seniors. As for the future, long-term solvency of the
program for future generations, the president has not proposed anything
that even approaches the level of a meaningful plan.

Criticism #8 - The Romney team is running a "dirty" and dishonorable campaign. Rating: Fair or unfair (comparative "dirtiness" is in the eye of the beholder).

In light of many of the facts outlined above, it may seem astounding
that the Obama campaign would cast themselves as the victims of a nasty
campaign. Nevertheless, in pushing back against strong condemnation of
the 'cancer' ad, numerous Obama aides cited a Romney commercial on welfare reform as a counter-balancing example. In essence they've argued, how can you heap opprobrium on us over a spot run by a SuperPAC we can't control (never mind that they introduced the cancer attack), when the Romney campaign itself is running these welfare ads?
The spot in question focuses on a quiet executive action taken by the
Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services in early
July. The decision ignored
explicit language in the 1996 Clinton-era welfare reform act by opening
up the law's federal work requirements to state-by-state waivers. This
move allows states to alter or water-down the black-and-white,
non-negotiable standards set forth in the statute. The meaning of the
legislative language has been confirmed by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Romney's ads pushed too far by drawing a direct line between Obama and potential
state decisions based on the newly increased leeway. The Republican
spots labeled the possible hollowing out of work requirements at the
state level "Obama's plan." This is an exaggeration, but the larger issue is rooted in fact. Politifact awarded the Romney campaign a "pants on fire"
rating for the ad, even though they accepted one of Romney's central
arguments, and chose not to address the core question of whether the
administration's action was lawful. ABC News' fact-check was more even handed,
scolding Romney for exaggerations, but acknowledging that his concerns
may soon be proven justified. In any case, the Obama campaign seems to
believe that this welfare ad is on par with the comprehensively debunked
and sleazy 'cancer' spot, roughly evening out to a "tie" of sorts. I
suppose this comes down to a judgment call. It may also be useful to
look at the sheer dollar amounts spent on negative advertising, the percentage of ads that are negative, and illustrative events such as Vice President Biden's recent racially-charged "chains" remark.

Conclusion: As the election approaches, it is
relatively apparent that President Obama will continue to hew to his
campaign's early strategy to (figuratively) "kill Romney." His approval ratings on the biggest issues of the day -- jobs, the economy and deficits -- are upside-down, and sinking. His most well-known policies are unpopular and have failed to live up to
the promises upon which they were built. Therefore, his best --
perhaps only -- path to victory entails disqualifying his opponent in
the eyes of voters. His party's attacks and negative ads against Romney
have primarily, though not entirely, focused on the themes and
allegations addressed in this column. I think it's striking how many of
these criticisms have been deemed to be outright falsehoods by
independent news organizations and fact-checkers. Several more are at
least patently unfair, even with a few genuine criticisms sprinkled in.

Questions: I'll leave you with two thoughts to
consider: First, what does it say about the incumbent's job performance
that his campaign is so heavily reliant on discussing subjects other than
his track record in office? Second, what does it say about the
president's challenger that so many of the high-profile attacks against
him have been grossly distorted, or entirely fabricated?

And guess what...she’s somewhat right as this election must NOT
be only about defeating Obama but also about defeating this sad excuse of a Congresswoman
as well.And even though voting Barack
Hussein Obama out is the key objective, we must also vote out his top
supporters, like Debbie, in order to give our country back to its rightful
owners...’We the People.’

And I can unequivocally say that with NO holds barred, as
unfortunately right now 'Debbie Downer,' as we in her district like to call her,
is my current, but hopefully NOT for much longer, Congresswoman.

Thankfully, ‘We the People’ know that Obama’s failed
policies have awoken ‘a sleeping giant’ whose arms span across America. We know the sad realities of those failed policies
on small government, on free markets, and on our personal liberties, freedoms,
and successes. And Debbie Wasserman
Schultz has proven her support time and again for those failed policies, including
the Obama steamrolling of our economy.

Besides being a supporter of TARP, 'Debbie Downer' is also a very
vocal mouthpiece in favor of the rip-roaring tax known as ObamaCare. She also voted for internet regulations, the
warrantless detention of US citizens, massive funding cuts to both Medicare and
our Defense budgets, and has, along with Obama, stabbed our friend and ally Israel
in the back by telling them to return to their pre-‘67 borders and by endorsing
Obama’s call for East Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian state.

And what makes those last ones even more despicable is that
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is Jewish.She knows
very well that those pre-’67 borders are indefensible in areas, and that
surrendering any part of Jerusalem is NOT an option for Israel.And yet as a traitor to her heritage and her
people, Debbie Wasserman Schultz supports, backs, and publicly bloviates the
Barack Hussein Obama rhetoric concerning Israel, and has NO problem or
conscience doing so.

And it continues...

"I’m not running for President" Debbie squawks as
she continues to ignore her opponent, Republican KAREN HARRINGTON’S request for
her to release her tax returns. While she screeches non-stop for Mitt Romney to
release his tax returns, Debbie Wasserman Schultz just doesn’t believe in full disclosure for herself.But then again she does have things to hide
like her failure until this year to report her second home in New Hampshire
(which BTW has been mortgaged since 2005 and should have been reported), her
holdings in a foreign drug company and the State Bank of India, and her
offshore investments including a Swiss Bank Account...the very things she
continuously chastises Mitt Romney for.

Guess what’s good for the goose just ‘aint good for this
gander, huh 'Debbie Downer'.

And even with all this there’s more that should NOT only
shock you but should light a fire of discontent so great under those living in
District 23 that they flood the polls en-masse on Election Day.First, if Debbie Wasserman Schultz is
re-elected she is in line to become Speaker of the House if the Democrats
retake the House or at worst the House Minority Speaker if they don’t.Second, the Speaker of the House is third in
line for the presidency meaning this little weasel could assume the presidency
if something happened to the president and vice-president.Now that is one hell of a scary thought!And third, there’s been musings out of DC
that if Debby does NOT assume either of those two positions, and if she and
Obama are re-elected, then she will be rewarded for her loyalty to Obama and
the party with the position of head of HHS, the Department of Health and Human
Services. That’s the government department
that’s the main agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing
essential human services...now that is a scary thought in its own right...Debbie
Wasserman Schultz telling us what’s good for us!That’s almost as bad, if NOT worse, than
Michelle telling us what we can and cannot eat!

So the game is now on to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz...a
game that we must NOT lose, because four more years of 'Debbie Downer' in any
position is NOT something that District 23 or America needs or wants.And the person chosen overwhelmingly by the
voters on primary day to unseat this little Obama lapdog is KAREN HARRINGTON, a
principled fiscal conservative, a woman of moral character who will work for
and listen to the voice of ‘We the People.’And a woman I am honored to NOT only support but also call ‘friend.’

The Patriot Factor

I’m an American Patriot who refuses to let our beloved country be changed into something unrecognizable to us by a man who wants to radically change and destroy our America and take away our children’s future. We patriots ARE the grassroots movement and we bloggers must spread the truth about the corrupt and traitorous Obama regime and his sanctioned islamization of America before it’s too late.
I'm also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media and co-head of CPR's Journalism Department again with Craig Andresen.